On faith

[James R]

If someone believes God to exist but doesn't "believe in God" due to wearing such shoes, that person is a theist for believing in the existence of God, but is someone who has turned away from the God they believe to exist.
This situation is not covered by the modern meaning of the word "atheism".

That reminds me...

Back in the distant past, people tended to use the term "atheist" to refer to people who were thought to reject God. Little consideration tended to be given to the idea that God actually might not exist. It was taken for granted by most people that God's existence was a given, and so anybody holding a contrary view was thought to be in a kind of denial of the obvious. Possibly this is Jan's attitude, which is kinda old-fashioned though arguably endearing in its own way.

So, in that past, if somebody were so bold as to dare to say "I don't believe in God", those around him/her would automatically assume he meant simply "I'm choosing to reject God" for some reason or other ("What has God ever done for me? I turn my back on Him!").

In the current enlightened Modern Era, more people now accept that God's existence is very much up for debate, though there are still many die-hards who long for the Middle Ages to return.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Right, a ''person of faith'' can be a deist, theist, spiritualist, Buddhist, etc. I try to cast a wide net when using that phrase.

You mentioned that 'a-theist'' means ''without God.'' It really doesn't mean that though, Jan. An atheist simply doesn't have a belief in the existence of God. (any god) It's important to talk about this I think, because there is an implication that a theist is ''with God'' and an atheist is ''without God,'' as if God picks and chooses who to ''be with.'' You might not have meant this at all, but it just reads that way, is what I'm saying. Unless you meant that an atheist lives his/her life ''without God'' because of his/her disbelief. Then, that would make sense. Sorry, maybe this is just semantics but it caught my eye. lol

An atheist doesn't have a belief in God. Why?
A popular reason is that there is no evidence of Gods existence. Agreed.
So what does it mean to be without God? The best way to answer that, imo, is understand what it is to without anything one cares to mention. I gave the definition of what it is to be withour sight, or hearing.
The answer is, that unless there is prior experience, we have no clue as to what it is like to have something, you are without.

It's funny that you mentioned the implication of atheism is that it assumes 'theist' is 'with God, or it assumes that the theist must therefore be 'with God'. But that's not what it means at all.

What is it to believe in something?
Let's say I now believe in you, what does that mean.
I only know you from what you post, I don't know your real name or background.
I don't know you, but I believe in you.
What would that entail?
In my opinion, it doesn't mean anything. I could just as easily lack belief in you.

I have reached a conclusion regarding the terms atheist and theist, and what they actually mean.
I used to think that a theist is one who believes in God, and the opposite for an atheist. But I realise that one can be a theist,
believe in God, but not be with God. I suppose a good example of this would be Christ's disciples. They believed in God, but they weren't really with God. They needed to be taught by their master, how to love God, how to be with him. Christ on the other hand was always with God. Do you see the difference?

If Theos = God, and A-Theos = without God.
Then it stands to reason that God is... despited our beliefs.
We can be A-Theos, this is our right, in this material atmosphere, but it only serves it's purpose in this life (should we be life long atheists).

Please don't think I'm bashing atheists and trumpetting theists. I am simply looking at the terms critically, which includes removing any and all assumptions, looking at what's left, and trying to make sense of it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes.

So you only believe in something that is proven. Right?
What do you believe in?

jan.

 

[James R]

An atheist doesn't have a belief in God. Why?
A popular reason is that there is no evidence of Gods existence. Agreed.
So what does it mean to be without God? The best way to answer that, imo, is understand what it is to without anything one cares to mention. I gave the definition of what it is to be withour sight, or hearing.

Theism and atheism are to do with beliefs. So, you need to compare apples with apples. Don't compare them to being without sight. Compare them to believing you can see or you can't see.

Let's run with the sight example for a moment. We identify four separate possibilities:

1. Person is blind and believes he is blind.
2. Person is blind and believes he can see.
3. Person is sighted and believes he is blind.
4. Person is sighted and believes he can see.

We note that all four combinations are possible, and we see that the property of being objectively blind or sighted is quite separate from the subjective belief that one is blind or sighted.

Now consider God.

1. God exists and person believes in God.
2. God exists and person lacks belief in God.
3. God does not exist and person believes in God.
4. God does not exist and person lacks belief in God.

Atheists would say that both items 2 and 4 describe the condition of atheism. And, importantly, item 3 makes the person a theist, despite the fact that there no God.

But you, Jan, would have to describe the person in 3 as an atheist, because that person is "without God" - there's no God to be with, after all. So, you're led to the absurd position of asserting that somebody who professes belief in God is in fact an atheist, contrary to normal usage.

The answer is, that unless there is prior experience, we have no clue as to what it is like to have something, you are without.

Many atheists, it should be noted, do have prior existence of believing in God. (Cue the No True Scotsman argument.)

Moreover, I do not have a Rolls Royce, but I think I have some clue as to what is is like to have one.

I have reached a conclusion regarding the terms atheist and theist, and what they actually mean.
I used to think that a theist is one who believes in God, and the opposite for an atheist. But I realise that one can be a theist, believe in God, but not be with God. I suppose a good example of this would be Christ's disciples. They believed in God, but they weren't really with God. They needed to be taught by their master, how to love God, how to be with him. Christ on the other hand was always with God. Do you see the difference?

I think I see the difference. The difference is that you're dividing theists into "proper" theists who believe in God in the "right" way - by which you mean the way you approve of - and those who believe in God in some other way. And you'd like to do the same with atheists - the "right" way in that case being turning one's back on the obviously-existing God.

If Theos = God, and A-Theos = without God.
Then it stands to reason that God is... despited our beliefs.

No. You can't conjure God into existence by playing with the definitions of words. God is not the same as the word "God".

 

[wegs]

I have reached a conclusion regarding the terms atheist and theist, and what they actually mean.
I used to think that a theist is one who believes in God, and the opposite for an atheist. But I realise that one can be a theist,
believe in God, but not be with God. I suppose a good example of this would be Christ's disciples. They believed in God, but they weren't really with God. They needed to be taught by their master, how to love God, how to be with him. Christ on the other hand was always with God. Do you see the difference?

I see the difference in what you are trying to convey, but if a person is a follower of one of the Abrahamic faiths, then that person would believe that God is ''with him/her'' in spirit. (and with everyone in spirit, not just those who believe)

If Theos = God, and A-Theos = without God.
Then it stands to reason that God is... despited our beliefs.
We can be A-Theos, this is our right, in this material atmosphere, but it only serves it's purpose in this life (should we be life long atheists).

What do you mean by this, sorry, not sure I follow. Are you saying that if someone wishes to ''reject'' the belief that a god may exist, that a god exists just the same, and belief isn't required?

Please don't think I'm bashing atheists and trumpetting theists. I am simply looking at the terms critically, which includes removing any and all assumptions, looking at what's left, and trying to make sense of it.

jan.

I don't think you're intending to bash anyone, but what is your main point that you are trying to make to atheists?

 

[Yazata]

Regarding the word 'atheist', it was originally coined by the ancient Greeks. When they used it, they weren't really talking about personal belief at all. They didn't really care what people believed privately, as long as they behaved in the appropriate way. 'Atheists' were those who failed to participate in a city-state's civic festivals in honor of that city's patron god/goddess. In Athens, honoring the patron goddess Athena was as much a patriotic ritual as a religious one. (The Parthenon temple was not only the most prominent temple of Athena, it was also the city's treasury, their Bank of Athens.) In early times a city's fortunes were believed to be ensured by the favor of the patron deity, and as time went on the practice of honoring that deity as a sign of patriotism to one's city continued, even as philosophical skepticism spread privately through the better educated citizenry. (The myths with their stories of gods conspiring against gods on Olympus might capture something of that. If cities fortunes rose and fell, and if each city had its own patron deity, changes here on Earth must correspond to changes in the relative standing of the gods in heaven.)

The ancient Romans thought in much the same way and assumed that the success and prosperity of the state depended on the favor of the gods, so that it was expected that everyone should honor the gods. The juxtiposition of religion and political identity is captured in emperor-worship and the deification of the emperor, the larger-than-life demigod who personally represented and personified the state. Temples and priesthoods were created to honor the emperor. It's doubtful if most people really thought of the emperor as a god in the religious sense, but attending the emperor's temple was a patriotic act.

That's why the early Christians were condemned by the Romans as atheists. It wasn't because they didn't believe in any deity, they obviously did. It was because they adamantly refused to honor the deities that symbolized the state and on whose favor the future of the state depended.

 

[spidergoat]

So you only believe in something that is proven. Right?
What do you believe in?

jan.

I didn't want to get all didactic on the word proven, since very little in science is actually proven. I would say evidence. I don't believe things without evidence of a reliable nature.

 

[spidergoat]

I've always thought faith indicates a strong belief in God, but doesn't mean absolute certainty. Although, any person of faith could feel certain that their beliefs are the right ones, but that is still just a belief. I haven't been following this thread consistently, are any theists trying to convince others of why they should believe in God's existence, too?

I have no issues with evangelism. But ask a theist what evidence would convince them there isn't a god, and they usually say none. So it's an unfalsifiable premise.

 

[spidergoat]

Someone in here once posted:
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Well that's false in a situation where evidence is expected (due to the premise or definition), but not found.

 

[wegs]

I have no issues with evangelism. But ask a theist what evidence would convince them there isn't a god, and they usually say none. So it's an unfalsifiable premise.

That's because faith isn't built on tangible evidence. (then it wouldn't be ''faith'') But if a theist says 'none,' who cares? If you tell me that you need evidence to believe in a god, that's great, but doesn't undo my beliefs, or make me want to convince you to change your mind. What I tend to see happening in this thread, is that there is this need? on both sides to convince the other (even subtly) that what they believe in (or don't believe in), is somehow wrong. That's why I brought up a page or so ago about subjectivity, because an atheist's views are subjective, just like the views of a person of faith. You may require objective evidence to be convinced of the existence of a higher being, but that doesn't change the subjective nature of your lack of belief. I guess one could call this, irony.

 

[sideshowbob]

You may require objective evidence to be convinced of the existence of a higher being, but that doesn't change the subjective nature of your lack of belief.

Huh?

I require objective evidence to be convinced of the existence of Bigfoot. How is that subjective?

 

[Tiassa]

I require objective evidence to be convinced of the existence of Bigfoot. How is that subjective?

I confess that might be the first time I've ever heard sasquatch called a higher being.

The question of God is a little more complex.

 

[wegs]

Huh?

I require objective evidence to be convinced of the existence of Bigfoot. How is that subjective?

Because you can only say that you don't believe that Big Foot exists. (I require objective evidence for the existence of Big Foot, too) But, if I'm honest, what I really mean is that I'd need to see Big Foot for myself, to believe in its existence. I don't take second hand hearsay stories as evidence. I don't take photographs as evidence, because they seem contrived. I don't need to 'see' God appear to me to have faith. But, you probably view evidence for God in the same you view evidence for Big Foot...you'd need to see God to believe in Him. Subjectivity is really nothing more than our decisions being made by gut feelings, and opinions. It's your opinion that God doesn't exist, and thus your opinion is subjective. Just like mine.

That said, Big Foot may very well exist, but I don't believe that it does.

 

[spidergoat]

that there is this need? on both sides to convince the other (even subtly) that what they believe in (or don't believe in), is somehow wrong.

Yes, because beliefs have consequences for society. Wrong beliefs tend to have negative consequences. My lack of belief is based on lack of evidence.

 

[wegs]

Yes, because beliefs have consequences for society. Wrong beliefs tend to have negative consequences.

Many people of faith lead positive productive lives helping others, and hurting no one - just like atheists. Many don't, but many atheists don't, also. I'm not sure why you see life as atheists vs everyone else.

My lack of belief is based on lack of evidence.

I know, and understand it.

 

[wegs]

*Bowing out of this thread, appreciate the discussion. Just kinda boring. Thanks for the chat*

 

[spidergoat]

Many people of faith lead positive productive lives helping others, and hurting no one - just like atheists. Many don't, but many atheists don't, also. I'm not sure why you see life as atheists vs everyone else.

Faith itself is dangerous, as it leads to false beliefs. To say nothing of faith in Biblical morality.

 

[DaveC426913]

himself
did you not just define god?

No. Why would you think so? If a blue-spotted thing I'd never known existed burst out of the bush and attacked me, it would be defining itself by its presence.

 

[DaveC426913]

What if you weren't there to see it, but you managed to catch it on you tube. Would that still be regarded as very strong evidence?

That's what I'm getting at. I decide what the threshold is for accepting something.

Should the people who didn't happen to see the aliens with their own eyes, accept it as evidence also?

They should do as they see fit, according to their own critical-thinking skills.

A skeptic, implicitly, must have such a threshold. If one does not have any acceptable criteria by which their skepticism could be satisfied in principle, then they are not skeptical; they are simply in dis-belief i.e. despite any evidence - which is not a rational position.

 

[DaveC426913]

So not being able to prove it does exist is a rational basis for lacking belief?

Yes. There are literally an infinite number of things that can't be proven not to exist. It would be impossible to be a believer in an infinite number of things. The default state would have to be the belief is undefined until such time as there is some reason to suppose existence. ("I don't believe" is less strong, and therefore more defensible, a stance than "I believe not").